Today we live in a world that strives for perfection. People have cosmetic surgery from toes to noses, all in the name of beauty. It seemes that society's so obsessed with what they want to be that they're not interessted in what they are. My personal thoughts on this topic are quite different. I'm not for plactic surgery but I'm also not against it. Let me explain some advantages and some disadvantages to you, before I reach my decision.
This topic is of course a mixed bag of positive and negative aspects. Let's look at the arguments of the advocates of plastic surgerys first. They say that we're living in a free country and so everyone should be allowed to do with his/her body whatever he/she wants, which is quite true I think. They also argue by saying that we should be thankful to have all those possibilities - so why shouldn't we use them? When you're disfigured because of an accident you've got the possibility to get (or nearly get) your look before back. When you're inborn with something (e.g. hair lent) you could have a more normal life after a surgery. And when you're ill (e.g. breast cancer) they're able to rebuilt parts of your body. Therefore making use of any of this means may help you to get rid of mental or psychical problems. Many people who had such operations say that they got the feeling of being accepted and integrated now, which also means that they've more self-confidence now! All those options make it easier for lots of people to live a "normal" life.
But as can be expected there are also people who see this differentely.
What is the real price we have to pay for keeping or achieving this beauty? In fact these "new" possibilities changed our opinion of what we find beautiful. Our society changed and we forget that having a nice charismatic personality and a healthy dose of self-esteem is really beautiful. In addition lots and lots of dentists do a botched job. Which means that you've got a body full of scars and that the people who had a plastic surgery do often look much worse than before! The new possibilities also lead to psychical problems. More and more people feeling to fat also they look quite healthy and normal. It's a body distortion and exactly this wrong opinion leads to anorexica and bulimia.
To sum up I personally think that a plastic surgery is a good option when you're disfigured in course of an accident, when you're inborn with something or when you're ill but not, if someone want's to look like Da Vincis Mona Lisa or someone else. Then i find the result always worse than before because it costs the persons personality, which is the basis of a character.
If we go on like this, we'll have a soiety with a completely wrong sight of what is beautiful. In a world where everything can be modified for the sake of pefection, it's going to be impossible to see the real face of a person, because NOTHING seems real anymore.
Wednesday 31 December 2008
Thursday 25 December 2008
My own idea of a perfect family (exam correction - Task B)
Nowadays there exist many different kinds of families. But in most cases you’re not able to choose, in which family you would like to live. The different kinds of families are a mixed bag of positive and negative aspects but which type is the best to live in? I personally think of the traditional family, the nuclear family, consisting of a male breadwinner, a female homemaker and in most cases 2.2 children.
From this perspective the family that is presented in ‘Virgins’ seems to be ideal, but only at first sight. The roles they play in their family are exactly the opposite of what I presented of a nuclear family. But this family shows some positive aspects of a nuclear family, other kinds of families may not offer. For example the advantage of their children to have both sides, their father and their mother, to discuss with, which is quite good, because I personally think that you normally need both sides. Primarily Jack shows how important it is to have siblings. He doesn’t get along with his father all the more his sister plays a important role in his life. She’s someone he can ask for advice and support which is the reason why he trusts her and is very thankful to have her (more often than not).
I think roles in a family are quite important. In the play Suzy’s the provider and Nick cares for the children and is in charge of the household. It hasn’t to be exactly like in this family, I think it’s only important that there exist some roles and a certain kind of structure which automatically leads to respect, which is very important. And that’s also what I miss a bit in a single parent household. There the single parent has to be breadwinner, provider and the one who calls the shots at the same time. That means that a single parent is often too busy and has no time for the children anymore. Then you may have the same problem, as the family in the play has: no one has time to listen and speak to each other – as a result also no one understands the other one! Therefore I think it’s much better when the work is split and when the parents both have equal rights in a family, because otherwise it may seem to live in a dictatorship, where also only one person calls the shots!
The role children play in a family is very, very, very important and it’s the main reason why I think that a nuclear family is normally the best! In my own experience I know that in the end it’s positive for a child to grow up with brothers and sisters. I already mentioned that in the play Jack shows how important his sister is for him and how important it is to have her as a father figure. In my opinion you need someone you can ask for advice and support. That’s so important!
In my essay I tried to show that it’s the feeling of being part of a community which a nuclear family (normally) offers you. And that it’s important to have both a common history and a kind of father figure. In my opinion it’s easier to achieve these points in a nuclear or extended family, which is the reason why I personally support this type although I unfortunately don’t live in such a kind of family.
From this perspective the family that is presented in ‘Virgins’ seems to be ideal, but only at first sight. The roles they play in their family are exactly the opposite of what I presented of a nuclear family. But this family shows some positive aspects of a nuclear family, other kinds of families may not offer. For example the advantage of their children to have both sides, their father and their mother, to discuss with, which is quite good, because I personally think that you normally need both sides. Primarily Jack shows how important it is to have siblings. He doesn’t get along with his father all the more his sister plays a important role in his life. She’s someone he can ask for advice and support which is the reason why he trusts her and is very thankful to have her (more often than not).
I think roles in a family are quite important. In the play Suzy’s the provider and Nick cares for the children and is in charge of the household. It hasn’t to be exactly like in this family, I think it’s only important that there exist some roles and a certain kind of structure which automatically leads to respect, which is very important. And that’s also what I miss a bit in a single parent household. There the single parent has to be breadwinner, provider and the one who calls the shots at the same time. That means that a single parent is often too busy and has no time for the children anymore. Then you may have the same problem, as the family in the play has: no one has time to listen and speak to each other – as a result also no one understands the other one! Therefore I think it’s much better when the work is split and when the parents both have equal rights in a family, because otherwise it may seem to live in a dictatorship, where also only one person calls the shots!
The role children play in a family is very, very, very important and it’s the main reason why I think that a nuclear family is normally the best! In my own experience I know that in the end it’s positive for a child to grow up with brothers and sisters. I already mentioned that in the play Jack shows how important his sister is for him and how important it is to have her as a father figure. In my opinion you need someone you can ask for advice and support. That’s so important!
In my essay I tried to show that it’s the feeling of being part of a community which a nuclear family (normally) offers you. And that it’s important to have both a common history and a kind of father figure. In my opinion it’s easier to achieve these points in a nuclear or extended family, which is the reason why I personally support this type although I unfortunately don’t live in such a kind of family.
Friday 5 December 2008
How are women presented in comercials and adverts?
Mösleweg 16
A-6840 Götzis
A-6840 Götzis
December 4th, 2008
BBC
c/o 11718 Barrington
court # 508
C- 90049 Los Angeles,USA
c/o 11718 Barrington
court # 508
C- 90049 Los Angeles,USA
Dear Sir,
The presenting of women in commercials
Everyday millions of people worldwide see your adverts . I personally noticed that most of them show a totally wrong sight of women, which is the reason, why I’m writing to you.
I’m a person who’s not easy to convince of something, but out of my experience and from the people around me I know that advertisement influences people all ages a lot! Therefore we both know that the message of an advert is very important and so I think it shouldn’t be a lie; how it’s unfortunately in most cases and especially in your adverts. It’s unacceptable how you present us women. I noticed that on the one hand you often show anorexic women, on the other hand very pretty, beautiful and half naked women; which both absolutely doesn’t respond in reality! In most of the cases those flawless women and the products promise eternal beauty. But come on, you know exactly like me that all those promises are a huge lie. Nevertheless people bye and bye your products, because they’re all unconsciously influenced by your (and of course thousands of other) hole promises. You also show women often in a silly and clumsy way, which is for lots of people in some cases just discriminatory! You present women in a way, which is just dishonest and often offending!
Therefore I hope that you at least think about what you really express in you adverts. Your imagination of silly and flawless women isn’t just an advert because that really does influence our society. Stop immediately lying to us and all the world and try to be more realistic!
Yours sincerely
Anja
Friday 28 November 2008
Group 6 FASHION ISN'T INDIVIDUALITY = ALL ARE THE SAME
PRO:
You don’t have to think, you just have to buy what the others wear
You don’t have to be terrified of discrimination, because all the others wear the same!
You don’t need much time in the morning!
You just have more self confidence, because when you wear, what the others wear than you’re normally not an outsider!
CON:
People buy exactly what the trend is looking for! You may loose your individuality and your identity!
It’s a general flavour and not your own style!
There are also many hanger-on’s!
With the same clothes you can still be an outsider (e.g. also in school uniforms you can see wheter someone is poor or rich)!
You can’t express yourself (your opinion)!
Lower quality (clothes)!
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
You can express your individuality also in other ways, for example, by the hair style…!
It`s not sure that you loose your individuality, only because you buy your clothes by “H&M”… (Character is also a part of your individuality)!
Not everyone buys his clothes by “H&M”… and some people like, for example, label clothes…
You can wear what you want; you just have to feel comfortable!
You can get attention by clothes / your style!
Angela, Anja and Sarah.M
You don’t have to think, you just have to buy what the others wear
You don’t have to be terrified of discrimination, because all the others wear the same!
You don’t need much time in the morning!
You just have more self confidence, because when you wear, what the others wear than you’re normally not an outsider!
CON:
People buy exactly what the trend is looking for! You may loose your individuality and your identity!
It’s a general flavour and not your own style!
There are also many hanger-on’s!
With the same clothes you can still be an outsider (e.g. also in school uniforms you can see wheter someone is poor or rich)!
You can’t express yourself (your opinion)!
Lower quality (clothes)!
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
You can express your individuality also in other ways, for example, by the hair style…!
It`s not sure that you loose your individuality, only because you buy your clothes by “H&M”… (Character is also a part of your individuality)!
Not everyone buys his clothes by “H&M”… and some people like, for example, label clothes…
You can wear what you want; you just have to feel comfortable!
You can get attention by clothes / your style!
Angela, Anja and Sarah.M
Friday 21 November 2008
city life vs. country life
Nowadays city life and country life are getting more and more realted, so it’s even more and more difficult to decide, where you want to live. Everyone has his own conceivabilities of living and everyone knows that neither city- nor country life has only advantages. So you have to decide which environment is “the right” for you to live.
Let’s compare a country- and a city life and look at the advantages of living in the country.
Living a little bit absent denotes the advantage of less traffic and automatically also a wonderful nature as well as good air. Therefore there are lots and lots of possibilities to make sport which leads to more healthy people. And of course, because of the fact that the people live off the beaten track, their periphery is quieter and as a result people are less stressed.
One disadvantage of a countrylife is that in the most cases public transports are rare and therefore all sorts of connections bad. Secondly you don’t have much possibilities and activities, where you can meet other people, which means, that you may easily get bored. And furthermore it’s difficult to get and also to go to work, because you’ll have to shuttle.
As can be expected also city life has on the one hand its good and on the other hand its bad aspects.To start with there I found three positive main points about city life. Firstly, living in a city means that you’re so much more flexible, because it’s quite easy and moreover fast to come “from here to there”, with the lots of possibilities a city offers you. In addition it’s much easier in a city to “see life”, to meet people and to find friends, because there are always some around you and, in “normal cases”, you would never get the feeling of being isolated from society. I think.
Finally you’ve also a lot of choices in dealings, no matter if you buy simply food or clothes.
Disadvantages are for example that based on exactly the same reasons (much choice, much people, much traffic…) especially townspeople get more and more mentally sick and out of order. The air in a city is bad, thereby the people have to go in parks, where the're with thousands of other people, when they want do be in nature or do some sport.
To sum up, as I’ve tried to show in my essay there are various factors that constitute to a city life and various that constitute to a country life. I personally have a life between a city and a country life, which is also what I prefere. I like the many possibilities of a city, and that it gives you the feeling of being a part of the community, but in almost the same manner I like to live in the country, because I love the smell of fresh air and because I love to live wherever I’m with nature and not living against nature!
Let’s compare a country- and a city life and look at the advantages of living in the country.
Living a little bit absent denotes the advantage of less traffic and automatically also a wonderful nature as well as good air. Therefore there are lots and lots of possibilities to make sport which leads to more healthy people. And of course, because of the fact that the people live off the beaten track, their periphery is quieter and as a result people are less stressed.
One disadvantage of a countrylife is that in the most cases public transports are rare and therefore all sorts of connections bad. Secondly you don’t have much possibilities and activities, where you can meet other people, which means, that you may easily get bored. And furthermore it’s difficult to get and also to go to work, because you’ll have to shuttle.
As can be expected also city life has on the one hand its good and on the other hand its bad aspects.To start with there I found three positive main points about city life. Firstly, living in a city means that you’re so much more flexible, because it’s quite easy and moreover fast to come “from here to there”, with the lots of possibilities a city offers you. In addition it’s much easier in a city to “see life”, to meet people and to find friends, because there are always some around you and, in “normal cases”, you would never get the feeling of being isolated from society. I think.
Finally you’ve also a lot of choices in dealings, no matter if you buy simply food or clothes.
Disadvantages are for example that based on exactly the same reasons (much choice, much people, much traffic…) especially townspeople get more and more mentally sick and out of order. The air in a city is bad, thereby the people have to go in parks, where the're with thousands of other people, when they want do be in nature or do some sport.
To sum up, as I’ve tried to show in my essay there are various factors that constitute to a city life and various that constitute to a country life. I personally have a life between a city and a country life, which is also what I prefere. I like the many possibilities of a city, and that it gives you the feeling of being a part of the community, but in almost the same manner I like to live in the country, because I love the smell of fresh air and because I love to live wherever I’m with nature and not living against nature!
Saturday 25 October 2008
MY OWN STYLE
I think I don't really have a style like poeple of some youth groups have it. My style's quite normal I think. For example my hair, which looks the same since years, however I don't want a new haircolor or a new cut cause I like it as it is. Also my clothes are not very exceptional.
I prefer to wear Jeans and T-shirts most of the time. It's quite typically for me that I wear my clothes upon the other, which’s called "Onion-look" in German. I like the combination of shirts with T-shirts and trousers with skirts. Most of my clothes are colorful but also black’s a coulor that becomes to me. I also like to wear embellishment, which I often take as a souvenir from holidays. I already have a lot and some quite special things. I like to look trough fashion magazines and also go to fashion shows, which inspirates me. I’m a fan of traditional clothes like liveries and I would really like to have a churchgoing outfit, like we had it in the past although I wouldn’t wear it (here in Austria) because I think I’d look like "Mickey Mouse" in a Western film. I think it looks interesting to wear some "oriental" clothes in combination with our "normal" clothes and I really like it when people have their own style or wear traditional clothes of their country. So I'm a person who prefers to mix styles.
Other than the mentioned also my outlook on life is quite “mixed”.
For example when I think about religion. I am a Catholic but I don't feel like one, nevertheless I don't want to have a other religion. It may seem a little bit strange but I have my own religion.
I like some ideas from Buddhism for example but also from Islam or Jewery. I take out the things I like, but them together and mix them; it’s like mixing a cocktail.
Trough all my life I was "something between".
As regards to my notes, my outlook and also my favourite style of music. I'm not a fan of hip hop or rap but nevertheless there are some songs from these styles of music I like. So all in all I’m a hotchpotch from tip to toe. Maybe that’s the reason why I'm so liberal opposite to other cultures and styles and why I would never ever say your style of music or clothes, your religion or ideology isn't good or isn’t right". All of the things I mentioned influence me, which is good because in the end that's what makes me who I am and that's what I love about myself.
That's Anja.
I prefer to wear Jeans and T-shirts most of the time. It's quite typically for me that I wear my clothes upon the other, which’s called "Onion-look" in German. I like the combination of shirts with T-shirts and trousers with skirts. Most of my clothes are colorful but also black’s a coulor that becomes to me. I also like to wear embellishment, which I often take as a souvenir from holidays. I already have a lot and some quite special things. I like to look trough fashion magazines and also go to fashion shows, which inspirates me. I’m a fan of traditional clothes like liveries and I would really like to have a churchgoing outfit, like we had it in the past although I wouldn’t wear it (here in Austria) because I think I’d look like "Mickey Mouse" in a Western film. I think it looks interesting to wear some "oriental" clothes in combination with our "normal" clothes and I really like it when people have their own style or wear traditional clothes of their country. So I'm a person who prefers to mix styles.
Other than the mentioned also my outlook on life is quite “mixed”.
For example when I think about religion. I am a Catholic but I don't feel like one, nevertheless I don't want to have a other religion. It may seem a little bit strange but I have my own religion.
I like some ideas from Buddhism for example but also from Islam or Jewery. I take out the things I like, but them together and mix them; it’s like mixing a cocktail.
Trough all my life I was "something between".
As regards to my notes, my outlook and also my favourite style of music. I'm not a fan of hip hop or rap but nevertheless there are some songs from these styles of music I like. So all in all I’m a hotchpotch from tip to toe. Maybe that’s the reason why I'm so liberal opposite to other cultures and styles and why I would never ever say your style of music or clothes, your religion or ideology isn't good or isn’t right". All of the things I mentioned influence me, which is good because in the end that's what makes me who I am and that's what I love about myself.
That's Anja.
Thursday 15 May 2008
Description of Charlie
Emotional, desolate, clever and smart are all words that could be used to describe Charlies personality (which changes a little bit until the end of the novel). Charlie is a rather shy person which automatically brings him in the position of a wallflower, in the position of an outsider. Aut of this position Charlie is able to notice things which maybe aren't important for other people or things which the others want to hide. I don't really have the impression that he's a real wallflower because if there happen something Charlie's often the first who knows about it and although he might look rather a bit reserved he still experiences and knows many many things! He likes to eat with fingers out of napkins and he really likes to read books several times which shows that he must have quite a lot of free time. Charlies favourite band is "the Smiths", he likes to read music magazines and by his friends he's known for making music tapes for them which is something he likes himself too. Because of his special and interesting character he's also got other good qualities as for example that he's a good listener, which his friends admire at him. Charlies birthday is at the 24 of December and his "favourite" aunt Helen is the only one who gives him two presents, what he really likes. It was very interesting to read about his life, how his past always persecutes him and therefore how he acts with this. A very special person.
Review / The perks of being a wallflower
The perks of being a wallflower by Stephen Chbosky is a novel that really took me by surprise. The strange title of the story caught my eye and after reading it I can truly say that it's a must read for all teenagers! The novel was written in the 1990's and first published in 1999 by MTV. The story explores topics such as introversion, teenage problems (sexuality), abuse... It's also is about drug use and the main characters experiences with this. The story takes place in the USA during a school year, when Charlie, the wallflower of the book, is a high school freshman. Two other important characters are Patrick (who's homosexual) and Sam (his sister); in short his only and best friends! Other characters that have important roles are Mary Elizabeth (Charlies girlfriend), Brad, Bill and Charlies older sister and brother.
At the beginning of the novel Charlies best friend Michael commits suicide and so Charlie hasn't anyone to hang out with. His teacher Bill and above all his new friends Patrick and Sam open Charlie a world in which he experiences things, which include both good and bad experiences, which he never would have done if he hadn't found them. We also got to see how Charlie deals with all the family gatherings that happen throughout the year but the main subplot involves Charlie and Sam which "friendship" involves much about love and romance.
What I personally really liked about the novel is that it's straightforward and that his story shows, how it REALLY is in high school. I like that the author wasn't afraid to talk about controversial topics like sex, drugs, alcohol, abortion, homosexuality, rape... and I also really like the letter format in which the story is written that's unusual but good I think.
I would recommend this book to kids over 14 years because of the topics the book discusses. I think for teenagers up to parents this novel is a "must read“!
At the beginning of the novel Charlies best friend Michael commits suicide and so Charlie hasn't anyone to hang out with. His teacher Bill and above all his new friends Patrick and Sam open Charlie a world in which he experiences things, which include both good and bad experiences, which he never would have done if he hadn't found them. We also got to see how Charlie deals with all the family gatherings that happen throughout the year but the main subplot involves Charlie and Sam which "friendship" involves much about love and romance.
What I personally really liked about the novel is that it's straightforward and that his story shows, how it REALLY is in high school. I like that the author wasn't afraid to talk about controversial topics like sex, drugs, alcohol, abortion, homosexuality, rape... and I also really like the letter format in which the story is written that's unusual but good I think.
I would recommend this book to kids over 14 years because of the topics the book discusses. I think for teenagers up to parents this novel is a "must read“!
Friday 2 May 2008
Exam correction
Violence is one of the most discussed and always curent topics in our society. Nearly every day we hear or see violence. Michale Medved is opposed to the violence on TV and I agree. I think it isn't true that violent movies ar just harmless entertainment and I think of course there is a evidence that they influence the puplic, so I totally agree with Medved's opinion. Medved made several interviews with people who said the shot at other people because they had seen this in "Natural Born Killers", and they thought that it's cool, which confirms that it's not juts harmless entertainment. I also agree with Medved that it's wrong that violent films just reflect reality, as it is because that's totally nonsense I think. The "movie-makers" say that they just give the public what they want which is absolutely rubbish! The real "money-makers" of 1995 for example were all films like Pocahontas, Toy Story or Lion King who partly made three times more money than for example this violent films from Tarantino! Which is, I think, a piece of evidence that teh people "not only" like violent films! Likewise the "statement": "you don't have to watch volent films, if you don't want to watch them", that's also a very naiv statement I think. Medved said too that you don't have to watch such films but he said that neverthelss you hear about such films or be 'connected' with violence with media, and also at this point I totally agree with him (Medved)!
There are many reasons, why there is so much violence in our society, however I don't think that it's mostly caused by violent movies or violent media! One thory, or one fact is for example that the family life of children, their upbringing influences their attitude to violence. "That violence doesn't influence everybody doesn't meant that it doesn't influence anybody", an absolutely correct statement I think! Many, many children have stars or sportathletes as their "heroes" who are a big role model for them, which isn't good because especially sprot is often connected with violence!
It is important that we reduce violence among children. Some people believe that it would be good if there were stricter punishments for people who sell e.g. alcohol to children, others claim that alcohol has nothing to do with violence, which I don't think! I also think that the media influences children more than they and their parents think! As you can see for example at experiments, Medved made with children, where they knew everything about seveal extremely violent films although they've never seen them before and they answered that they just know all this terrifying details from the media! And that's quite scary I think! Therefore I think there should be a much strikter censurship on medias as there it is by now!
Finally violence is frequently caused by negative emotions like hate and I think that we really have to do with the agressive and brutal sort of violence how we can watch it in films! So I really think that there's something to do!
There are many reasons, why there is so much violence in our society, however I don't think that it's mostly caused by violent movies or violent media! One thory, or one fact is for example that the family life of children, their upbringing influences their attitude to violence. "That violence doesn't influence everybody doesn't meant that it doesn't influence anybody", an absolutely correct statement I think! Many, many children have stars or sportathletes as their "heroes" who are a big role model for them, which isn't good because especially sprot is often connected with violence!
It is important that we reduce violence among children. Some people believe that it would be good if there were stricter punishments for people who sell e.g. alcohol to children, others claim that alcohol has nothing to do with violence, which I don't think! I also think that the media influences children more than they and their parents think! As you can see for example at experiments, Medved made with children, where they knew everything about seveal extremely violent films although they've never seen them before and they answered that they just know all this terrifying details from the media! And that's quite scary I think! Therefore I think there should be a much strikter censurship on medias as there it is by now!
Finally violence is frequently caused by negative emotions like hate and I think that we really have to do with the agressive and brutal sort of violence how we can watch it in films! So I really think that there's something to do!
Thursday 21 February 2008
Essay writing - pros and cons of a ban on violent scenes in movies
Violence - one of the most discussed, most difficult and always current themes around the whole world. Everyday we're confronted with violence and especially in the last years even more and more! Violent movies are getting more and more sucessful in our society, and it's controversial if there should be a ban on it or not.
There are three major arguments from people who are against such a ban:
Firstly, we don't turn into a non-violent society just because we don't show violence in movies - because violence is everywhere! Secondly, most of the films shown in cinemas or on tv are so unrealistic that a normal person wouldn't copy or imitate those (mostly total nonsensical) violent- scenes they saw in films. And thirdly, according to researches and surveys, the majority of the people doesn't get violent just because they watch such films.
But there are also powerful arguments wich are in favour to a ban on violence in movies. Firstly, there are also many very good non-violent films which are sucessfull too. Maybe because so much violence, how it's shown in most of the films today, isn't realistic anymore! Secondly, it's proved that exactly violent movies have got an extremely high influence on people, especially on children under twelve years. They unconsciously become more and more violent to others. Thirdly, the imitation of violent scenes e.g. if ther's a amok-run shown in a film, the viewers maybe think of violence as a solution!
Finally, I can't imagine a general ban on violence in movies. In the majority of cases violence has got a negative influence on us, and I would wish, there would be stricter censorships of violent scenes, but I unfortunately think, it's already to late for making a general ban on violent movies.
There are three major arguments from people who are against such a ban:
Firstly, we don't turn into a non-violent society just because we don't show violence in movies - because violence is everywhere! Secondly, most of the films shown in cinemas or on tv are so unrealistic that a normal person wouldn't copy or imitate those (mostly total nonsensical) violent- scenes they saw in films. And thirdly, according to researches and surveys, the majority of the people doesn't get violent just because they watch such films.
But there are also powerful arguments wich are in favour to a ban on violence in movies. Firstly, there are also many very good non-violent films which are sucessfull too. Maybe because so much violence, how it's shown in most of the films today, isn't realistic anymore! Secondly, it's proved that exactly violent movies have got an extremely high influence on people, especially on children under twelve years. They unconsciously become more and more violent to others. Thirdly, the imitation of violent scenes e.g. if ther's a amok-run shown in a film, the viewers maybe think of violence as a solution!
Finally, I can't imagine a general ban on violence in movies. In the majority of cases violence has got a negative influence on us, and I would wish, there would be stricter censorships of violent scenes, but I unfortunately think, it's already to late for making a general ban on violent movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)